September 21, 2012

"... and we want you to know that some people are not deaf, dumb, and blind. And we know what's going on, and we are going to tell your voters, your constituents, what you guys did tonight."

And as we knew they would, the Dane County Board voted last night to take advantage of the Dane County judge's decision striking down parts of Act 10, the law that led to all the protests last year here in Madison, Wisconsin — Dane County.

Dane County Executive Joe Parisi said the county and union had a very short window to work with. Parisi said the county started bargaining with AFSCME for a contract for 2015 after Friday's court decision...

County leaders said they wanted to act fast in the small window of time before the judge has the opportunity to order a stay, which would keep the law in effect until it goes through the appeal process.

The video above was shot by Meade, who thought the man in that clip gave the best of the short citizen speeches that preceded the vote. I was there too, arriving late and leaving early. The gallery near me was packed with citizens wearing green AFSCME T-shirts.

This is what bothers me about when the left has power. Even if the time they have power is short, the changes effected seem to bind us far into the future so that correctives are hamstrung even when others are elected.

Perhaps the most extreme example is the most instructive, I.e. one man, one vote, one time.

I'd be curious to know what you think of the county's view that the judge's ruling somehow created a "window" to sign binding collective bargaining agreements that conflict with Act 10.

My understanding is that there was a window last year of several months after Act 10 was passed, because the lower courts prevented PUBLISHING of the statute, so its effective date was delayed. Until it took effect, various municipalities were free to ink new collective bargaining agreements that would be impermissible once Act 10 took effect.

But suppose this ruling is ultimately reversed on appeal, with the appellate court ultimately reaffirming that Act 10 took effect -- and invalidated various collective bargaining agreements -- starting in 2011. How would the fact that the county signed an agreement during this so-called "window," prior to the appellate ruling, matter? Wouldn't the ultimate appellate ruling definitively establish that no so-called "window" of legality was ever created?

The AG has indeed requested a stay, back on the 17th. The judge advised him that the decision would be issued in writing, at an unspecified point in the future. A skeptical mind might wonder if "external" factors play a role in the timing of the decision.

That poor guy probably thinks that Dane county voters disagree with the Board's actions. They don't. This group will be re-elected again and again. They will be re-elected until the voters realize that they can no longer take other people's money to pay for all of this.

1. Typically stay decisions are made nearly immediately. If the court whose ruling is to be stayed does not grant a stay (i.e., either denies it or, as here, drags its feet), typically the party seeking the stay may petition for a writ in the next-higher court.

2. In any event, if the linked news story is correct -- and it may NOT be -- then the new contract will be voided if the court's decision is overturned, which seems very likely. ("The contract is valid unless the judge's ruling calling Act 10 unconstitutional is overturned in the appeals process," says the nws story.)

Ann asks me to repost what got doubly posted and doubly deleted. Here is the gist of it.

The 'short window' that the Dane County Board wants to take advantage of is open only because the trial court's order striking down Act 10 has not been stayed. Unless there was some explantion in WI procedural law or otherwise, I speculated that the reasons why the Atty Gen had not sought a stay might be that he was content to let the lefties in charge of the Dane County Board convince the voters that they don't want similar folks in high office -- such as Tammy or O.

The premise of that comment was that the Atty Gen had not sought a stay. Sofa King responded that, in fact, the Atty Gen had requested such a stay from the trial court almost immediately, but that the trial judge was holding up a decision (he wants to issue a written opinion, or so he says). So, to the extent politics might be a factor, the upshot of SK's comment was that it might be the trial judge who's determined to put together a circular firing squad of lefties. Even better.

But the Atty Gen may still be playing a bit of a political game too. In most jurisdictions -- not sure whether WI law is the same, however -- an appellant doesn't have to wait for the trial court to act on a stay motion before seeking the same relief from the appellate court. A similar situation arose a few weeks ago (discussed at Volokh) in the Ninth Circuit. There, a fed district judge had issued an oral ruling against the State that impacted on the upcoming election, but was delaying in issuing a written order (normally a necessary predicate before an appeal can be taken). The Ninth Circuit nevertheless granted a stay, and in a scathing opinion Judge Stephen Reinhardt took the district judge to task for the game-playing where it looked like the district judge was trying to run out the closk to defeat the State's right to an appeal.

"garage mahal said...They are the ones that are ultimately being bent over and ass-f*cked against their will.

The County Board is elected by voters. One would think this is what the voters want? I've been hearing that for almost two years."

If you read my comment, you would see that I was talking not about the electorate in total, but that part that is both paying for this and not receiving any direct benefit from it. Sadly for them, they are a minority. But reading comprehension is hard.

Telling is that in your idiot comment yesterday and your two here today, you don't even try to justify these actions. And all the other typical suspects...r/v, pp, allie oops, are mum.

While I hold out no hope for leftist Dane County, these are the types of shenanigans at the county level that got Scott Walker elected county executive three times in the Democrat stronghold of Milwaukee County.

TosaGuy said..."I disagree. When Doyle was voted out, for example, there was a lot of time to ram through legislation, and to his credit, he didn't do what he could have done."

Doyle and the Dems tried to ram through state employee contracts during a lame duck session. The Assembly Dems got one of their members out of jail to vote; however, two lame duck Dem senators broke ranks to deny the contracts.

Can someone please summarise what *additional* latitude or discretion the county might have in "non-Act10" regime?

I had assumed that Act10 only *added* to the power and discretion held by the county in negotiating contracts, without imposing new requirements on the county. This belies any urgency for contract settlement during this non-Act10 "window".

If you read my comment, you would see that I was talking not about the electorate in total, but that part that is both paying for this and not receiving any direct benefit from it.

Yes, your concern for the people in Dane County is duly noted. I know you've been a big champion for them in the past. Makes you wonder if these geniuses ever went through the law to stem off legal challenges they should have know would surely come.

I haven't seen shiloh since I made him a shit sandwich, made him eat it, and asked if he wanted another. But then I have been busy. Living my life, watching cartoons, or Zero.(never can keep them straight).

As for Garage...He's right. The slack jaws in Madison voted for this...Well, they get's it. Eff 'em.

Got yer' back here GM!

As for verifying names etc...Why do you care Garage? You didn't for the recalls. Your little bitch act won't fly if your not consistent.

Yes, your concern for the people in Dane County is duly noted. I know you've been a big champion for them in the past. Makes you wonder if these geniuses ever went through the law to stem off legal challenges they should have know would surely come."

Again only a strawman, nothing justifying this action by the Dane County board. Wonder why that is?

If the Dane County Board's objective is to pay county employees sky-high wages, why do they need to bargain with the unions? Just pass a law guaranteeing 10% pay hikes annually for all employees, right?

The county said the contract for 2015 gives it the flexibility -- nearly $5 million -- to deal with economic uncertainty and budget issues.

These savings would be achieved by wage reductions of up to 1.9 percent, which is equivalent to five furlough or closure days, and employee participation in an unpaid voluntary leave program, which the county said has worked in the past to save money.

Language added to this new contract saves the County up to $5million dollars, but the usual haters don't care one bit about that...all they know is that collective bargaining is eeeeeeeeeeeevillllll and no good can ever come from it, even when it saves money.

Perhaps my earlier post was wrong...maybe some folks are upset about the actual terms of the new agreement rather than just having a knee-jerk reflex action against workers being allowed a seat at the table again.

So, with that in mind, here is what was negotiated between the county and the workers.

Could someone please tell me exactly what is fucking sickening with this deal.

Please show me what in the contract is akin to being ass-raped.

How are these measures, designed to save money if times get hard, gonna bankrupt Dane County?

Of course, if you simply hate the idea of allowing workers to negotiate with their employers, then feel free to say so as well...

Penguin, I always check your staemnts because they are always bullshit, and again you haven't disappointed.

First of all, this extension provides one additional year where the County/Union can increase wages outside of the limitations of Act10. If one sides opens the negotiations, the other has to play. So we have another year where union wages are a big unknown. Any guess how that will play out?

Second, this $5 million "savings" that can be enacted through a 1.9% reduction in wages is laughable.

The board would have to have the stones to do it.

If they do have the stones to do it, employees receive 40 hours of additional personal time. Guess what 1/52 is? 1.9%! What a coincidence!

So to recap, the Union is unbound by Act 10 caps for another year, and if the want to renegotiate wages then the County has to go to the table with them. Second, if the county does cut their to be determined later pay 1.9% in 2015, the worker is compensated DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR with more personal time off. SO that savings in directly proportional to reduction in services to citizens and taxpayers.

They have also created an additioanl 40 hours of banking of vacation, so employees can ultimately convert this personal time to cash by using it as a substitute for vacation.

If the unions were dealing with their empoyers you would have a point. Their employers are the people of Dane county. Instead, they are dealing with the lying scum democrats who sold the people a bill of goods, that the board would do what is in the counties best interests. Instead, the board is receiving money from the unions, to further dupe the people of Dane county.

this extension provides one additional year where the County/Union can increase wages outside of the limitations of Act10.

Since Act10 is considered invalid they could have done that. But they didn't do so, so why are you acting as if they did? The link is right there for everyone to see, and no where at all does it increase wages.

So we have another year where union wages are a big unknown.

Actually the wages for 2015 were unknown, prior to this contract. But just like this story says, this new agreement "maintains pay rates and other provisions of a 2014 contract." Since they weren't changed in this contract they are the same as the previous one.

if the want to renegotiate wages then the County has to go to the table with them.

You think that is how contracts work? That if one party wants to change the terms they can just do so at any time, and the other party has to agree to make changes?

Really?!

*rolls eyes*

You really have no idea how any of this works, do you? All you know is that you have a deep hatred for unions, and you simply feel that nothing good can ever come from 'em.

It doesn't matter to you that this agreement saves taxpayer money...because it was negotiated rather than dictated you're gonna label it as an ass-raping.

These savings would be achieved by wage reductions of up to 1.9 percent, which is equivalent to five furlough or closure days, and employee participation in an unpaid voluntary leave program, which the county said has worked in the past to save money.

Is it to infer that any wage 'cuts' will not actually be a wage cut, but simply working less hours? This is why teachers and their ilk (administrators) deserve so little respect.

I've heard all the sob stories about how 'hard' teachers have to work outside of the classroom; as if it's something special that they are making the sacrifice to do so.

You'd think that the school system would be working by now after 100s of years of figuring out how to teach. But when idiot teachers believe the scumbag lies of their 'leaders' you get what you are given. Until teachers (actual teachers) take a responsibility to really educate children, only then will you actually rise up and be given the rewards for your work, rather than taking a cut out of the mafiaesque protection racket.

These savings would be achieved by wage reductions of up to 1.9 percent, which is equivalent to five furlough or closure days, and employee participation in an unpaid voluntary leave program, which the county said has worked in the past to save money.

Is it to infer that any wage 'cuts' will not actually be a wage cut, but simply working less hours? This is why teachers and their ilk (administrators) deserve so little respect.

I've heard all the sob stories about how 'hard' teachers have to work outside of the classroom; as if it's something special that they are making the sacrifice to do so.

You'd think that the school system would be working by now after 100s of years of figuring out how to teach. But when idiot teachers believe the scumbag lies of their 'leaders' you get what you are given. Until teachers (actual teachers) take a responsibility to really educate children, only then will you actually rise up and be given the rewards for your work, rather than taking a cut out of the mafiaesque protection racket.

"purplepenquin said...this extension provides one additional year where the County/Union can increase wages outside of the limitations of Act10.

Since Act10 is considered invalid they could have done that. But they didn't do so, so why are you acting as if they did? The link is right there for everyone to see, and no where at all does it increase wages."

Penguin, you are an ignorant fool. This contract is for 2015, and is an extension of the contract in place. The contract in place (That was rushed through before Act 10) allows for negotiation of wages, and forces one side to bargain if the other one chooses to. They DON'T HAVE TO DO IT NOW. Just as wages in the out years of the existing contract have not been determined. They want to get out from under Act 10 for another year which limits bargaining to the CPI, or to go to a referendum if you want to exceed CPI increases.

This great for the union. How is this good for the taxpayer? Here let me help, it's NOT. It sucks.

"purplepenquin said...So we have another year where union wages are a big unknown.

Actually the wages for 2015 were unknown, prior to this contract. But just like this story says, this new agreement "maintains pay rates and other provisions of a 2014 contract." Since they weren't changed in this contract they are the same as the previous one."

More ignorance. Because the county hurried a new contract through they have no protection of Act 10. Which means they have no wage limitation tied to the CPI (or go to referrendum). The only wages defined in the current three year contract were for the first year. The rest will be "collectively bargained". Who knows what they will be? But a county that rushes a contract that actually eliminates things in their favor clearly is beholden to the union, not the citizen in general. So "maintain pay rates" is bullshit. They have not been determined.

if the want to renegotiate wages then the County has to go to the table with them.

You think that is how contracts work? That if one party wants to change the terms they can just do so at any time, and the other party has to agree to make changes?

Really?!

*rolls eyes*

You really have no idea how any of this works, do you? All you know is that you have a deep hatred for unions, and you simply feel that nothing good can ever come from 'em."

I know more than you asshole. Here, from a WSJ article on the existing contract:

"There is no wage increase guaranteed for the final three years of the contract, said Topf Wells, the county executive's chief of staff. Either side can reopen the bargaining on the subject of wages in any of those years. If one side reopens the bargaining, the other side has to bargain the wages, Wells said.

So yeah asshole, if the union wants to renegotiate in the last three...now four years...the county has to. And they have no protections of ACT 10 that limits increases to CPI, or having to go to referendum if it's more.

Additionally, the county workers pay MUCH LESS into healthcare and pension than they would under Act 10, so they get one more year of that too.

How is that good for the taxpayer? Let me help you, it's NOT.

"purplepenquin said...It doesn't matter to you that this agreement saves taxpayer money...because it was negotiated rather than dictated you're gonna label it as an ass-raping."

Because it doesn't save the taxpayer money. I have shown why. Yes, they can decease wages by 1.9%. That doesn't mean they will. And there is a limitation on that. If existing taxation can cover the employee cost , than they can't reduce wages. Hell, they can raise them to whatever they can pay for.

But lets say they do reduce wages 1.9%. That is offset dollar for dollar with more paid personal time, which means less services for county residents. Again, how is that good for the residents and taxpayers?

Let me help you, it's NOT.

And just to clarify for your dumb ass, none of the negatives above would be applicable under Act 10. None. The union members would have had to pay more for their pension/healthcare, and would be limited to CPI increases on wages. No additional paid personal time. No additional banking of vacation. And they could have gotten the $5 million "savings" be keeping wages static by doing a furlough system. All better for the county/taxpayer. But they chose not to. Why?

Because you have county board members beholden to the union. That's not who they serve...well at least not supposed to.

That vote should be presented in the appeal, because it shows that both sides of the labor-management "negotiation" are one and the same, with a symbiotic financial relationship that is clearly corrupt and corrupting.

EXACTLY!!! And yet you still insist that the wages are so out of control that it is a akin to an ass-raping.

Thanks for proving my point, and so quickly...

Yes, they can decease wages by 1.9%. That doesn't mean they will

Even tho they have used furlough days in the past, you are convinced they will never do it again, eh?

*rolls eyes*

And they could have gotten the $5 million "savings" be keeping wages static by doing a furlough system

LOL. This contract sets up a furlough system. Please try and pay attention.

Besides, I thought you didn't want a furlough type of system anyways? Earlier you were upset that the workers actually got time off if they got paid less....you want them to keep working the same amount of days for that lesser pay, don't you?

How is that good for the taxpayer? Let me help you, it's NOT

Do you really think that the taxpayers would be better off if every county job was min-wage with no benefits at all?

After all, that would save a lot of $$$...and that is the only measuring stick you are using, no?

Looking at the other comments...about the scum-bag teachers and whatnot...it is pretty obvious that emotions, rather than logic, is what is driving this attack. Ya'll are just pissed that this county is willing to work with their employees to negotiate wages/benefits, 'cause you don't beleive that the workers should have a say in anything about the contract they are gonna sign...they just need to shut-up and sign whatever is handed to 'em.

That is why you called it an ass-raping before you even read the agreement. It doesn't matter at all what is in the contract, your whole problem is the fact that the workers have a seat at the table.

EXACTLY!!! And yet you still insist that the wages are so out of control that it is a akin to an ass-raping.

Thanks for proving my point, and so quickly..."

You are a fucking moron. There is NO WAGE INCREASE PROTECTION FUCKTARD. THAT"S THE FUCKING POINT.

"Yes, they can decease wages by 1.9%. That doesn't mean they will

Even tho they have used furlough days in the past, you are convinced they will never do it again, eh?

*rolls eyes*"

And they could have gotten the $5 million "savings" be keeping wages static by doing a furlough system

LOL. This contract sets up a furlough system. Please try and pay attention.

Besides, I thought you didn't want a furlough type of system anyways? Earlier you were upset that the workers actually got time off if they got paid less....you want them to keep working the same amount of days for that lesser pay, don't you?

How is that good for the taxpayer? Let me help you, it's NOT

Do you really think that the taxpayers would be better off if every county job was min-wage with no benefits at all?

After all, that would save a lot of $$$...and that is the only measuring stick you are using, no?"

Retard, under Act 10 they would not have to have furlough days. The savings in the pension/health as well as limitations on wage increases over the next three years would assist them to that end.

As far as our minimum wage bullshit, that a strawman, and you are a fucking idiot. Only a moron would argue that the union and the board would rush and sign areement that was in the best interests of the taxpayer.

You are a fucking moron. you are an ignorant fool asshole. just to clarify for your dumb ass Retard. you are a fucking idiot.

*sigh*

So do you get in a lot of fistfights when out in public, or do you only talk like a jerk while online and not in while walking about?

Either way, it doesn't matter...you can cuss and call names all ya want, facts o' the matter remain the same: You simply hate the idea of county workers negotiating with their employer, even when it results in a potential savings for the taxpayer.

under Act 10 they would not have to have furlough days

Really?! You're really saying that Act 10 is so good that no county will ever again find themselves in an emergency budget situation and have to furlough workers?

*rolls eyes*

No wonder you feel the need to cuss people out...you ain't got anything real to say.

As far as our minimum wage bullshit, that a strawman

Not a strawman at all. It appears that you are of the beleif that the only thing that is "good for the taxpayer" is less wages/benefits for gov't workers. I am asking you to please clarify that stance: Do you think it would be best for the taxpayer if all gov't workers were paid minimum wage and no benefits?

Only a moron would argue that the union and the board would rush and sign areement that was in the best interests of the taxpayer.

You say that as if you'd be ok with the contract extension if it had not happened quite as fast. But that ain't the case at all, is it?

Admit it: You compared this contract extension to an ass-raping...even before you knew what was in it...simply 'cause you hate the idea of workers negotiating a contract with their employer.